UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
Esseesse said:
Esseesse said:
steveT350C said:
Apparently some UKIP song is the number 1 download tune from Amazon. I have not listened to it yet, but having been a house-music dj, I expect I won't like it.
Still, any publicity etc.
UKIP, whether you like them or not, are defining current UK politics.
You have to ask yourself...
Do you want to be a kipper.....
....or a sheep?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Best-Sellers-MP3-Downloads...Still, any publicity etc.
UKIP, whether you like them or not, are defining current UK politics.
You have to ask yourself...
Do you want to be a kipper.....
....or a sheep?
Don't matter, that little number is genius PR, and made me giggle.
Off to bed.
Eta, thanks Esseesse for the link
steveT350C said:
eharding said:
steveT350C said:
Do you want to be a kipper.....
....or a sheep?
I recall another particularly nasty piece of work using those terms to distinguish his movement from the populace as a whole, deeming them to be a 'flock of sheep and blockheads".....or a sheep?
You just can't help yourself, can you?
eharding said:
steveT350C said:
Do you want to be a kipper.....
....or a sheep?
I recall another particularly nasty piece of work using those terms to distinguish his movement from the populace as a whole, deeming them to be a 'flock of sheep and blockheads".....or a sheep?
You just can't help yourself, can you?
eharding said:
steveT350C said:
eharding said:
steveT350C said:
Do you want to be a kipper.....
....or a sheep?
I recall another particularly nasty piece of work using those terms to distinguish his movement from the populace as a whole, deeming them to be a 'flock of sheep and blockheads".....or a sheep?
You just can't help yourself, can you?
BGARK said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
We've just been through that. The council does not have the power to cut the number of councillors. That is the responsibility of the local government boundary commission.
So it was just a UKIP councillor trying to make some cheap political capital out of an illegal motion
What are you on about, the Labour councillors refused to even acknowledge the suggestion that cuts could be made to their own staff. They are the ones acting illegally, can you not read the stills??So it was just a UKIP councillor trying to make some cheap political capital out of an illegal motion
WTF has the UKIP guy done wrong other than putting forward suggestions that would help! They would not actually do anything at that moment in time, that would be for a later date but not if the Labour muppets have just binned the concept of even discussing it!
Why can you not see that, I am astonished that people like you think that what you have seen is somehow wrong?
So why did he not just raise that the issue about aides? Probably because it wouldn't have made political capital and may have even been accepted.
And if anyone thinks it is just my view that the motion was illegal, feel free to fine evidence that I am wrong. To help you hear is the LBGC website who I believe are responsible
https://www.lgbce.org.uk
eharding said:
I know. You're just letting your inner 'kipper loose.
Why do you keep coming on this thread if it is just to insult people and say no to everything?10 + 10 = 20... eharding replies, no it isn't, you will all burn in hell (with such anger and a broken keyboard)
Were you bullied as a child maybe? We will try and be your friends if you are bit nicer, honest!
BGARK said:
eharding said:
I know. You're just letting your inner 'kipper loose.
Why do you keep coming on this thread if it is just to insult people and say no to everything?10 + 10 = 20... eharding replies, no it isn't, you will all burn in hell (with such anger and a broken keyboard)
Were you bullied as a child maybe? We will try and be your friends if you are bit nicer, honest!
JustAnotherLogin said:
And if anyone thinks it is just my view that the motion was illegal, feel free to fine evidence that I am wrong. To help you hear is the LBGC website who I believe are responsible
https://www.lgbce.org.uk
I think you may be in error here. Is it illegal or improper practice or just not the way they normally do things.https://www.lgbce.org.uk
Years ago as a Policeman I got used to service clients I dealt with saying that things were illegal and they knew the law, when they were actually against some administrative rule, not polite or an inconvenience to the natural justice that eluded them.
It is really hard to find something that's not there, so I won't waste my time on your hunch, but, if you know it is illegal you must know the relevant law. Otherwise you 'think' it is illegal. There is a big difference. I genuinely don't know. I do know that if the Cllrs. Involved wanted to they could have said we want to do this but we can't because... they didn't.
don4l said:
Wombat3 said:
You clearly think it was possible, so which budgets would you have cut to a total of £130Bn inside one year?
(see http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/... )
ETA - Link fixed
That's a Guardian link. (Aren't you supposed to be pretending to be a Conservative?)(see http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/... )
Edited by Wombat3 on Monday 20th October 18:20
ETA - Link fixed
Edited by Wombat3 on Monday 20th October 19:15
I don't click on Guardian links. Listening to the Today programme on R4 gives me my maximum daily dose of leftyness.
However I think that you want to talk about Government spending.
So, here are some facts. Apologies for all the dots. I don't know how to keep things lined up without them.
...........2007.....2013...%increase
Total(Bn)..£549.....£673...22.5%
Pensions....£94.....£139...50%
Health......£94.7...£124...31%
Education...£73......£87...19%
Defence.....£36.6....£42...15%
Welfare.....£83.5...£114...37%
Overall spending has gone up by 22.5% in a period when inflation has only been 19%.
I don't think that anybody was starving in 2008. In fact life was pretty good. So, if we go back to the standard of life that we had before the crash, we save £19.2 Bn at a stroke.
Health care only was only £66Bn in 2003. We could probably save another £15Bn there without any loss of service.
We have now saved £34Bn.
I don't understand why pensions have gone up so much. Perhaps the government are feeling guilty about the extra 30,000 death that occurred last winter, due to the fact that they couldn't afford to heat their homes.
We could save another £19Bn if we went back to the 2007 levels of welfare benefits. Nobody starved in 2007. Why do they need more?
That is £53Bn of savings.
Do I really need to go on?
It doesn't matter who published the figures, they are just the figures.
You are seriously suggesting that government should have just ignored Inflation on pensions, education & health to name but three?
"Go back to the standard of life in 2007/8?" What on earth does that mean?
"We could "probably" save another £15Bn out of the NHS?" Oh good, where from exactly? Probably doesn't really cut it I'm afraid.
....and how does any of that square with an ageing population
I've seen some creative accounting in my time but please, do go on, you've still got another £77Bn to find....
brenflys777 said:
Wombat3 said:
Keep going..... (only £117 Bn to find - though more in reality because the foreign aid budget probably wasn't that big in 2010).
This is a very specific question - where would Don have cut £130Bn from in 2010 ?
(He's the one who said it could be done, not me)
Oh yes! The foreign aid budget was INCREASED under Cameron! How could I think that austerity measures were a serious effort to cut spending and borrowing... This is a very specific question - where would Don have cut £130Bn from in 2010 ?
(He's the one who said it could be done, not me)
Edited by Wombat3 on Monday 20th October 19:21
I don't know where all the savings could be made. I don't have the expertise, but this seems a common sense start. We spend more than we earn. We make cutbacks until it's better. Cameron's priorities are not traditional conservative values.
Would we as a country be better or worse off cutting foreign aid? If it's a choice between cutting Police budgets and increasing foreign aid - what would you expect normal people to choose?
(whilst also swerving the question as to where the massive crime wave is that necessitates a huge increase in police budgets?)
Edited by Wombat3 on Monday 20th October 23:32
Wombat3 said:
brenflys777 said:
Wombat3 said:
Keep going..... (only £117 Bn to find - though more in reality because the foreign aid budget probably wasn't that big in 2010).
This is a very specific question - where would Don have cut £130Bn from in 2010 ?
(He's the one who said it could be done, not me)
Oh yes! The foreign aid budget was INCREASED under Cameron! How could I think that austerity measures were a serious effort to cut spending and borrowing... This is a very specific question - where would Don have cut £130Bn from in 2010 ?
(He's the one who said it could be done, not me)
Edited by Wombat3 on Monday 20th October 19:21
I don't know where all the savings could be made. I don't have the expertise, but this seems a common sense start. We spend more than we earn. We make cutbacks until it's better. Cameron's priorities are not traditional conservative values.
Would we as a country be better or worse off cutting foreign aid? If it's a choice between cutting Police budgets and increasing foreign aid - what would you expect normal people to choose?
Wombat I've gone through this before. I am not happy that we as a high single income family lost our child benefit whilst higher household income families kept it. It seemed unfair. I would not have been happy to lose money but I was particularly cross to see any savings made from this completely negated by Cameron's largesse with things that matter to him.
It also highlights that when David Cameron gives an absolute guarantee before an election (as he did on child benefit remaining a universal benefit) he is quite prepared to ignore that when he has higher priorities after election. What has Cameron not only protected but increased whilst other budgets are cut - foreign aid and 'green subsidies'. Those are his priorities.
Do you think it is right that foreign aid is increasing at a time when other public spending is decreasing?
brenflys777 said:
Wombat3 said:
brenflys777 said:
Wombat3 said:
Keep going..... (only £117 Bn to find - though more in reality because the foreign aid budget probably wasn't that big in 2010).
This is a very specific question - where would Don have cut £130Bn from in 2010 ?
(He's the one who said it could be done, not me)
Oh yes! The foreign aid budget was INCREASED under Cameron! How could I think that austerity measures were a serious effort to cut spending and borrowing... This is a very specific question - where would Don have cut £130Bn from in 2010 ?
(He's the one who said it could be done, not me)
Edited by Wombat3 on Monday 20th October 19:21
I don't know where all the savings could be made. I don't have the expertise, but this seems a common sense start. We spend more than we earn. We make cutbacks until it's better. Cameron's priorities are not traditional conservative values.
Would we as a country be better or worse off cutting foreign aid? If it's a choice between cutting Police budgets and increasing foreign aid - what would you expect normal people to choose?
Wombat I've gone through this before. I am not happy that we as a high single income family lost our child benefit whilst higher household income families kept it. It seemed unfair. I would not have been happy to lose money but I was particularly cross to see any savings made from this completely negated by Cameron's largesse with things that matter to him.
It also highlights that when David Cameron gives an absolute guarantee before an election (as he did on child benefit remaining a universal benefit) he is quite prepared to ignore that when he has higher priorities after election. What has Cameron not only protected but increased whilst other budgets are cut - foreign aid and 'green subsidies'. Those are his priorities.
Do you think it is right that foreign aid is increasing at a time when other public spending is decreasing?
And then there is s
t like Ebola, Syrian refugees and displaced Yazidis to deal with.To just say "we have a deficit so we need to stop all foreign aid" is, IMO, uncharitable, insular, ignorant, selfish and really not very bright. Arguably the world is also a much less stable place with a greater number of people and places that need aid than it was 5 years ago.
So cut it by half then? It wouldn't make a snot's worth of difference back home.
Clearly the tide is turning against green subsidies but, again, this government was left with huge commitments (and legally binding contracts) by the last one. Again, it might have been better to have addressed some of that sooner, but as always, spending lags policy by years. Its naïve to suggest that it can all just be stopped overnight.
Some of the "green energy" budget goes into energy saving schemes (insulation etc). I'm all for that - we should be trying to consume less. AFAIK domestic energy consumption is down by around 15% on average. The more the better. We now get something like 15% of all our energy requirements from renewables. Not easy to just replace that overnight, and if you did, with what?
Its been widely acknowledged that the introduction of fraccing for gas in this country will have little or no effect on market prices because our energy market is so closely linked to those of so many other countries. This is not the US in that regard, we would not see a massive fall in the price of energy if/when we bring fracc'd gas on line (as the US did). Its a myth to suggest otherwise.
Its also not going to be a nationalised industry (even to the extent that Statoil is in Norway). Licenses will be sold to private companies, so public sector income from it is not going to be vast & certainly not vast enough to fund any kind of Sovereign wealth fun....and the more they charge for the licenses then the higher the price of the end product will be to the consumer anyway.
Wombat3 said:
Foreign aid is a very effective tool when its targeted correctly. As with all such things it takes time to move things around & reduce some programmes (that we made commitments to) while increasing others. For example, by next year we will have eliminated the aid we give to India - which means that money is going somewhere better. (Not soon enough on that particular score IMO, but it has been done).
And then there is st like Ebola, Syrian refugees and displaced Yazidis to deal with.
To just say "we have a deficit so we need to stop all foreign aid" is, IMO, uncharitable, insular, ignorant, selfish and really not very bright. Arguably the world is also a much less stable place with a greater number of people and places that need aid than it was 5 years ago.
So cut it by half then? It wouldn't make a snot's worth of difference back home.
Clearly the tide is turning against green subsidies but, again, this government was left with huge commitments (and legally binding contracts) by the last one. Again, it might have been better to have addressed some of that sooner, but as always, spending lags policy by years. Its naïve to suggest that it can all just be stopped overnight.
Some of the "green energy" budget goes into energy saving schemes (insulation etc). I'm all for that - we should be trying to consume less. AFAIK domestic energy consumption is down by around 15% on average. The more the better. We now get something like 15% of all our energy requirements from renewables. Not easy to just replace that overnight, and if you did, with what?
Its been widely acknowledged that the introduction of fraccing for gas in this country will have little or no effect on market prices because our energy market is so closely linked to those of so many other countries. This is not the US in that regard, we would not see a massive fall in the price of energy if/when we bring fracc'd gas on line (as the US did). Its a myth to suggest otherwise.
Its also not going to be a nationalised industry (even to the extent that Statoil is in Norway). Licenses will be sold to private companies, so public sector income from it is not going to be vast & certainly not vast enough to fund any kind of Sovereign wealth fun....and the more they charge for the licenses then the higher the price of the end product will be to the consumer anyway.
That's a very long post, but still hard to tell from that where you stand on this:And then there is s
t like Ebola, Syrian refugees and displaced Yazidis to deal with.To just say "we have a deficit so we need to stop all foreign aid" is, IMO, uncharitable, insular, ignorant, selfish and really not very bright. Arguably the world is also a much less stable place with a greater number of people and places that need aid than it was 5 years ago.
So cut it by half then? It wouldn't make a snot's worth of difference back home.
Clearly the tide is turning against green subsidies but, again, this government was left with huge commitments (and legally binding contracts) by the last one. Again, it might have been better to have addressed some of that sooner, but as always, spending lags policy by years. Its naïve to suggest that it can all just be stopped overnight.
Some of the "green energy" budget goes into energy saving schemes (insulation etc). I'm all for that - we should be trying to consume less. AFAIK domestic energy consumption is down by around 15% on average. The more the better. We now get something like 15% of all our energy requirements from renewables. Not easy to just replace that overnight, and if you did, with what?
Its been widely acknowledged that the introduction of fraccing for gas in this country will have little or no effect on market prices because our energy market is so closely linked to those of so many other countries. This is not the US in that regard, we would not see a massive fall in the price of energy if/when we bring fracc'd gas on line (as the US did). Its a myth to suggest otherwise.
Its also not going to be a nationalised industry (even to the extent that Statoil is in Norway). Licenses will be sold to private companies, so public sector income from it is not going to be vast & certainly not vast enough to fund any kind of Sovereign wealth fun....and the more they charge for the licenses then the higher the price of the end product will be to the consumer anyway.
brenflys777 said:
Do you think it is right that foreign aid is increasing at a time when other public spending is decreasing?
Also do you really think £6.5 billion wouldn't make a snots worth of difference back home? Wow. That's more than half the policing budget for the UK! Cameron's priorities are far from conservative. brenflys777 said:
Wombat3 said:
Foreign aid is a very effective tool when its targeted correctly. As with all such things it takes time to move things around & reduce some programmes (that we made commitments to) while increasing others. For example, by next year we will have eliminated the aid we give to India - which means that money is going somewhere better. (Not soon enough on that particular score IMO, but it has been done).
And then there is st like Ebola, Syrian refugees and displaced Yazidis to deal with.
To just say "we have a deficit so we need to stop all foreign aid" is, IMO, uncharitable, insular, ignorant, selfish and really not very bright. Arguably the world is also a much less stable place with a greater number of people and places that need aid than it was 5 years ago.
So cut it by half then? It wouldn't make a snot's worth of difference back home.
Clearly the tide is turning against green subsidies but, again, this government was left with huge commitments (and legally binding contracts) by the last one. Again, it might have been better to have addressed some of that sooner, but as always, spending lags policy by years. Its naïve to suggest that it can all just be stopped overnight.
Some of the "green energy" budget goes into energy saving schemes (insulation etc). I'm all for that - we should be trying to consume less. AFAIK domestic energy consumption is down by around 15% on average. The more the better. We now get something like 15% of all our energy requirements from renewables. Not easy to just replace that overnight, and if you did, with what?
Its been widely acknowledged that the introduction of fraccing for gas in this country will have little or no effect on market prices because our energy market is so closely linked to those of so many other countries. This is not the US in that regard, we would not see a massive fall in the price of energy if/when we bring fracc'd gas on line (as the US did). Its a myth to suggest otherwise.
Its also not going to be a nationalised industry (even to the extent that Statoil is in Norway). Licenses will be sold to private companies, so public sector income from it is not going to be vast & certainly not vast enough to fund any kind of Sovereign wealth fun....and the more they charge for the licenses then the higher the price of the end product will be to the consumer anyway.
That's a very long post, but still hard to tell from that where you stand on this:And then there is s
t like Ebola, Syrian refugees and displaced Yazidis to deal with.To just say "we have a deficit so we need to stop all foreign aid" is, IMO, uncharitable, insular, ignorant, selfish and really not very bright. Arguably the world is also a much less stable place with a greater number of people and places that need aid than it was 5 years ago.
So cut it by half then? It wouldn't make a snot's worth of difference back home.
Clearly the tide is turning against green subsidies but, again, this government was left with huge commitments (and legally binding contracts) by the last one. Again, it might have been better to have addressed some of that sooner, but as always, spending lags policy by years. Its naïve to suggest that it can all just be stopped overnight.
Some of the "green energy" budget goes into energy saving schemes (insulation etc). I'm all for that - we should be trying to consume less. AFAIK domestic energy consumption is down by around 15% on average. The more the better. We now get something like 15% of all our energy requirements from renewables. Not easy to just replace that overnight, and if you did, with what?
Its been widely acknowledged that the introduction of fraccing for gas in this country will have little or no effect on market prices because our energy market is so closely linked to those of so many other countries. This is not the US in that regard, we would not see a massive fall in the price of energy if/when we bring fracc'd gas on line (as the US did). Its a myth to suggest otherwise.
Its also not going to be a nationalised industry (even to the extent that Statoil is in Norway). Licenses will be sold to private companies, so public sector income from it is not going to be vast & certainly not vast enough to fund any kind of Sovereign wealth fun....and the more they charge for the licenses then the higher the price of the end product will be to the consumer anyway.
brenflys777 said:
Do you think it is right that foreign aid is increasing at a time when other public spending is decreasing?
Also do you really think £6.5 billion wouldn't make a snots worth of difference back home? Wow. That's more than half the policing budget for the UK! Cameron's priorities are far from conservative. Then take away from that the benefits we get from foreign aid in terms of exports, influence and other similar stuff & the marginal difference (and effect on you & me) becomes inconsequential.
To suggest we get nothing in return from foreign is unlikely to be an argument that carries very far. Therefore cutting it may save us some cash in the sort term, but it will also have consequences on the other side of the balance sheet.
Edited by Wombat3 on Tuesday 21st October 00:16
Wombat3 said:
We'd more than likely borrow 6.5Bn less, not spend 6.5Bn more at home (or somewhere in the middle).
Then take away from that the benefits we get from foreign aid in terms of exports, influence and other similar stuff & the marginal difference (and effect on you & me) becomes inconsequential.
I'll try again... in fairness I've tried asking my local conservative candidate and she won't answer either.Then take away from that the benefits we get from foreign aid in terms of exports, influence and other similar stuff & the marginal difference (and effect on you & me) becomes inconsequential.
brenflys777 said:
Do you think it is right that foreign aid is increasing at a time when other public spending is decreasing?
brenflys777 said:
Wombat3 said:
We'd more than likely borrow 6.5Bn less, not spend 6.5Bn more at home (or somewhere in the middle).
Then take away from that the benefits we get from foreign aid in terms of exports, influence and other similar stuff & the marginal difference (and effect on you & me) becomes inconsequential.
I'll try again... in fairness I've tried asking my local conservative candidate and she won't answer either.Then take away from that the benefits we get from foreign aid in terms of exports, influence and other similar stuff & the marginal difference (and effect on you & me) becomes inconsequential.
brenflys777 said:
Do you think it is right that foreign aid is increasing at a time when other public spending is decreasing?
Foreign aid is not separate from "public spending" its a single component of it.
Overall we need to bring public spending down and public spending is decreasing in areas where we spend far too much anyway (could go faster IMO).
Meanwhile its going up in other areas (Pensions, the NHS etc) which is also fine by me. There is also no doubt that government does not spend money efficiently at home (governments seldom do) so equally we can do more with less and so absolute spending levels do not necessarily indicate degraded services where efficiencies can be found. Spending less does not automatically equal BAD!
With regard to what we spend on aid, we are, in comparison to most, an extremely wealthy country with a very high standard of living. We spend a very small %age of total spending on it and it yields dividends. It is not all one-way traffic.
Therefore, as things stand, I'm not uncomfortable with the amount we are spending on it and equally quite happy that things like benefits are being capped to the levels they are at home.
JustAnotherLogin said:
We've just been through that. The council does not have the power to cut the number of councillors. That is the responsibility of the local government boundary commission.
So it was just a UKIP councillor trying to make some cheap political capital out of an illegal motion
no,we have not. you put forth your interpretation as the be all and end all. how about he was proposing a motion to the council,which if passed ,could then be submitted to the local boundary commission for implementation in a lawful and correct manner. i prefer that version.So it was just a UKIP councillor trying to make some cheap political capital out of an illegal motion
Wombat3 said:
Foreign aid is a very effective tool when its targeted correctly. As with all such things it takes time to move things around & reduce some programmes (that we made commitments to) while increasing others. For example, by next year we will have eliminated the aid we give to India - which means that money is going somewhere better. (Not soon enough on that particular score IMO, but it has been done).
'Foreign aid is a very effective tool when its targeted correctly.'This is a truism. The only thing that matters is the outcome versus the cost.
Can you point us to research to back up your stance that the UK Foreign Aid budget is value for money for the UK tax payers?
It is clearly great news for many so called charities and exporting companies, their directors and shareholders. Not to mention assorted despots and dictators.
But us?
Sorry if its already been done but ..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-29693...
"Former BBC Radio 1 DJ Mike Read has written a song in support of UKIP, which the party hopes its supporters will propel to number one.
UKIP Calypso, performed with a mock Caribbean accent, sings the praises of UKIP leader Nigel Farage.
But some Twitter uses complained that the track was racist."
It seems that some twitter users are not Relaxed about it and want it banned.
I wonder what Frankie has to say on the matter ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-29693...
"Former BBC Radio 1 DJ Mike Read has written a song in support of UKIP, which the party hopes its supporters will propel to number one.
UKIP Calypso, performed with a mock Caribbean accent, sings the praises of UKIP leader Nigel Farage.
But some Twitter uses complained that the track was racist."
It seems that some twitter users are not Relaxed about it and want it banned.
I wonder what Frankie has to say on the matter ?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff